UPDATE 15,15 Friday: A Brent Council spokesperson said: "We welcome Baroness Casey's detailed and balanced report. This is not about a blame game, this is about learning lessons to ensure that the shocking scenes of EURO Sunday can never be repeated. We will work closely with partners, including the FA and Metropolitan Police, to take forward the recommendations."The Casey Review published today LINK finds
that the arrival of large numbers of ticketless fans at Wembley on the day of
the final was predictable. What was unexpected was the ferocity and scale of
these efforts. The behaviour of those who may not have come to Wembley planning
to get into the stadium but joined in, often violently, when it became apparent
that this was possible, was particularly striking.
However, warning signs (involving earlier
matches in the tournament) were not recognised as parts of a bigger picture of
trouble looming. This was largely due to assumptions that trouble was more
likely to flare after the game and across London. Brent Council were the
exception to some degree, having flagged concerns in the days leading up to the
final. On the day around 9am a Brent Council official flagged up that
ticketless fans were queueing up at pubs near the stadium.
Chapter 4 of the Review concludes that although action was stepped up
for the final there was an absence of risk assessment for the occasion that
Euro Sunday represented. This amounted to a collective failure by partners
involved.
Summary of key findings (extracted from the Review) Highlighting mine.
The key findings of the Review are as follows:
- ● The behaviour of a large minority of
England supporters was not just disgraceful, it recklessly endangered
lives
- ● There were a series of crowd ‘near
misses’ which could have led to significant injuries or even death
- ● Planning and preparation for Euro
Sunday was hampered by a set of unique conditions, including the ongoing
need to manage the Covid-19 pandemic, which combined to create a ‘perfect
storm’
- ● Many of the events that unfolded were
foreseeable, and, while there were many mitigating factors, there was a
collective failure to plan for the worst case scenario
- ● A loss of experienced stewards as a
result of the pandemic left Wembley’s stewarding operation vulnerable when
confronted with the most aggressive and disorderly crowd Wembley had ever
seen
- ● The absence of a fan zone or fan zones
denied the police and other agencies a key crowd management tool and was
potentially a very significant factor
- ● There was insufficient enforcement of
the ban on consuming alcohol on public transport in London
- ● The policing of the final did not
sufficiently mitigate the risk of ticketless fans with officers deployed
too late in the day
- ● There are a lack of enforcement
mechanisms available to respond to and deter the kind of behaviour
witnessed at Euro Sunday
- ● Planning of the final did not match
the ‘occasion’ that was Euro Sunday
Recommendations
This Review makes 5
recommendations for national consideration and 3 specifically for the FA and
Wembley and its partners. This Review has been conducted on behalf of the FA to
look at their own responsibilities with regard to Euro Sunday.
We have considered the
wider partnerships and the national context within which the event took place
and taken the liberty of making some recommendations with that in mind. It
should also be noted that while this Review is concerned with football there
are many lessons that could be applied to the wider stadium and event industry.
1. I recommend that the Government considers a new
category for football matches of national significance
The majority of partners
treated the Euro final as another match albeit a significant one, rather than
an event of national significance. As a result, the security arrangements
surrounding the final were underpowered and public safety was not given the
prominence it deserved.
In the future, there
should be a new category for football matches of national significance, with
the SGSA, police, and other key partners setting out what steps should be taken
for such matches. This could include:
- ● A maximalist police (and other
agencies with enforcement powers) resourcing and deployment plan
- ● The establishment of a sterile area
within Zone Ex which is restricted to ticket- holders
- ● More robust governance arrangements
including an independent checkpoint as part of the process
- ● Enhanced enforcement of bans on
alcohol consumption on public transport and in other designated public
spaces
The prospect
of new legislation is welcome and timely as it gives the Government the
opportunity to update the legal framework that governs spectator safety which
has not been significantly reviewed since the Hillsborough tragedy.
2. I recommend
that the Government consider tasking the SGSA to work with the FA and the event
industry to undertake a review of stewarding
SGSA should
undertake a review and research the current challenges faced by live sporting
events in securing sufficient numbers of trained stewards and provide guidance
to the sector on how public safety can be assured.
A range of
wider factors, including the pandemic (which prompted many experienced stewards
to find new vocations) and global supply chain challenges, have created
significant workforce challenges for the stewarding sector. It is important
that the implications of these shortages are understood for the wider events sector.
The SGSA should work with
key partners (including the FA and United Kingdom Crowd Management Association
(UKCMA)) to understand the particular factors in play here and their
implications for the longer-term sustainability of the stewarding role at major
sports events. That, in turn, should inform wider considerations within the
Government and the sector itself.
3. The SGSA, the events industry, the police and
local government agree on a way forward on who is accountable for Zone Ex
There should be clear
accountability for public safety in Zone Ex. The question of who was
responsible for public safety on Olympic Way was a contributing factor to the
inability to deal with the disorder seen in the build-up to kick-off. The
police and stadium operators have for many years contested the issue of who is
responsible for safety and security in Zone Ex (the area of public space
outside the stadium used by supporters) and the financing of it remains a
contested issue. This should be resolved.
The SGSA should review the
provisions of the 1975 Safety of Sports Grounds Act, together with its
oversight powers and any associated guidance for local authorities, to
determine if they are still fit for purpose, particularly in relation to the
control and management of Zone Ex.
4. I ask that The FA - as the governing body that
oversees football - lead a national campaign to bring about a sea-change in
attitudes towards supporter behaviours
The appalling behaviour of
supporters on Euro Sunday should be a wake-up call for us all. For too long,
the actions of a minority of England fans have been tolerated as a part of our
national culture (albeit an embarrassing one), rather than confronted head-on.
The FA and Wembley,
working with others, should step up action on eradicating such behaviours from
football, including:
- ● refusing to allow entry to fans who
arrive chanting foul abuse and/ or are clearly under the influence of
alcohol and/ or drugs
- ● stricter enforcement (with police
support) against those behaving badly inside the stadium, with
consideration being given to ejections also leading to an automatic
exclusion and ban from all football grounds (not just Wembley)
- ● more proactive engagement with the
Football Safety Officers Association around intelligence-sharing,
particularly with regards to fan behaviours
- ● a considerable step-up action again to
stamp out racism by the FA, Premier League and English Football League
- ● Appoint the Football Supporters Association
(supported by the FA) to a leading role in working with fans and others to
eradicate these behaviours
5. I recommend that the Government consider
strengthening the penalties for football-related disorder, particularly
behaviours which recklessly endanger lives and these penalties should be well
understood and robustly enforced
The existing enforcement
mechanisms available to the police and other enforcement officers do not offer
enough deterrent against those determined to use the cover of football matches
to commit criminal offences. Tailgating, for example, should become a criminal
offence. Sanctions for those breaking into football stadiums and/ or recklessly
endangering lives is weak.
It is welcomed by the
Review that the Prime Minister has committed to making it possible to obtain a
football banning order against a person convicted of online racist offences.
In light of expert advice
provided to this Review by Daniel Greenberg CB, we recommend that the Home
Office considers options for strengthening the legal framework surrounding
football-related disorder, with a particular focus on addressing the weaknesses
and gaps identified in this Review. Specifically, the Home Office should
consider:
- ● ensuring that the FBO regime to ensure
drugs-related disorderly behaviour is treated in the same way as
alcohol-related disorder
- ● identifying a suitable legislative
mechanism for deterring the practice of tailgating, such as through an
expanded FBO regime or through the application of PNDs
- ● identifying a suitable legislative
mechanism for a new offence of endangering public safety in a stadium
through reckless behaviour, such as interfering with emergency doors,
triggering fire alarms or damaging barriers and other safety
infrastructure, with penalties comparable to those for endangering the
safety of an aircraft
- ● Greater urgency to introduce the
Online Safety Bill should be given as it is a real opportunity to stiffen
penalties for racism and hate speech online
6.
Recommendations specifically for the FA/Wembley and key partners
6.a The FA and
Wembley should strengthen plans for safety both physical and human, ahead of
any matches or events of significant risk. This should include but not be
limited to:
- ● The physical fences and means of
separating and filtering unticketed fans from those with legitimate
access.
- ● Particular attention should be made to
ensuring those entering through gates provided for wheelchair users and
other more vulnerable members of society are not endangered by the
reckless actions of others.
- ● A staff survey of all those involved
with security, stewarding and safety on Euro Sunday so the FA can be
doubly sure their views are taken into any future changes
- ● Security plans should be regularly
peer reviewed by experienced safety and security professionals to ensure
rigour
- ● The incoming Chair of the FA should
take steps to be sure that she and the FA Board have suitable oversight of
safety and security at Wembley Stadium
6.b. A more
joined up approach between Wembley and the MPS is required to managing public
safety on match-days, including joint tasking and debriefing of operational
teams
6.c The key
partners represented on the Wembley SAG, most notably the MPS, the FA and Brent
Council, need to make a concerted effort to proactively solicit and listen to
each other’s concerns and avoid any single agency from becoming too dominant.
CAROLYN DOWNS, BRENT COUNCIL CEO, RAISED CONCERNS AFTER THE GERMANY MATCH WITH THE MET POLICE MATCH COMMANDER AND CABINET COVID-19 TASK FORCE
EXTRACT:
A written submission from
Brent Council to the Review indicates that as England progressed through the
tournament, antisocial behaviour increased around the stadium. When England
played Scotland, the council noticed ticketless fans gathering for the first
time in the plaza at the end of Olympic Way. On the day of the following match,
against the Czech Republic, the council issued 17 Fixed Penalty Notices (FPNs)
for public urination, street drinking and littering near the stadium.
The council’s concerns
about fan behaviour inside and outside the stadium escalated significantly
after England played Germany in the ‘round of 16’ with stadium capacity
increased to 40,000. Some fans arrived in the morning without tickets and began
drinking on Olympic Way outside the Co-op supermarket and Butlers convenience
store. By the afternoon they were climbing on street furniture such as bins,
benches and lamp posts, and throwing glass bottles in the air. The council
subsequently issued 22 FPNs for public urination.
“People were buying crates of beer. That’s something that I hadn't seen
before at Wembley (football games).” - Sports
Ground Safety Authority official
Other ticketless fans
gathered outside the White Horse pub and moved to the foot of the Spanish Steps
during this match, prompting a Euro 2020 Fans Embassy representative to warn
police there could be trouble unless this crowd was moved on.
Brent officials were now
concerned about off-licence sales to supporters who could not get into pubs and
bars to watch matches due to Covid-19 restrictions.
“We were concerned after the Scotland game but it was the Germany game
that really worried us. People were openly saying they had no tickets. They
were partying until 6pm. None of this is normal for Wembley.” - Brent Council official
Brent Council chief
executive Carolyn Downs was sufficiently concerned about the gathering of
crowds around the White Horse and on Olympic Way to speak to the MPS Match
Commander after the match and request they ensure officers move them on. In
addition, Downs asked her staff to explore options to stop shops selling
alcohol completely if England progressed in the tournament. Her team believed
that they did not have that power and that it would be for the police to apply
to a magistrates court.
Downs was sufficiently
concerned about the disorder surrounding the Germany game on 29 June to raise
it not only with her own staff but with the Cabinet Office and MPS.
On 30 June, a meeting of
senior government officials was convened by the Cabinet Office’s Covid-19
Taskforce. The meeting’s purpose was solely Covid-19 related, and was not due
to consider any other issues regarding the tournament. Downs, however, used the
meeting to raise her concerns about fan behaviour outside Wembley when England
had played Germany. Downs told the meeting that the atmosphere had been “toxic”
and the council was unhappy about ticketless fans gathering by the stadium. The
chief executive of the Sports Ground Safety Authority also expressed his
concerns about fan behaviour, having witnessed “trampolining” on empty seats
covered with UEFA branded tarpaulins.
Though the MPS were not
invited to this meeting, Downs repeated her views about the toxic atmosphere to
a senior MPS officer later that day.
The following day (1 July)
the Wembley Safety Advisory Group (WSAG) met at the request of Downs to discuss
Brent and the SGSA’s concerns ahead of the semi-final matches. Safety Advisory
Groups (SAG) meet in order to consider events at a stadium or sports ground
which present a significant public safety risk. Though advisory by nature, a
SAG is typically chaired by the local council which issues a stadium with the
safety certificate it needs in order to operate. Prior to the tournament, the
Wembley SAG met on 18 March and 4 June to discuss tournament preparations.
At this meeting it was
clear that the MPS were angry not to have been invited to the Cabinet Office
‘challenge session’ on 30 June as a delivery partner. They had feedback from
the Home Office which they believed questioned their operational independence.
This was unfortunate as it set the tone for the WSAG on 1 July.
A video recording of the 1
July WSAG, chaired by Brent Council’s Director of Community Safety and attended
by officials from the FA, Wembley, the SGSA, the MPS and Brent, makes it clear
there was shared concern that the levels of intoxication within the stadium had
become unprecedented.
An SGSA official present
at England's game against Germany told the meeting they “had never seen
behaviour like it...They were all drunk on the concourse, you know, there was
beer going everywhere.” The official described persistent standing around the
stadium as “dreadful”, and concluded that the prospect of similar behaviour if
England reached the semi-finals, with a larger number of fans inside the
stadium, was “really, really frightening”.
A Brent Council official
recounted intervening personally to prevent a drunken fan falling from the
parapet of level 5 while celebrating an England goal. They concluded: “As for
the drunkenness and spillage...I've been in the stadium for a number of years,
and I haven't seen that kind of mess or behaviour.”
Stadium records seen by the
Review show that 56 people required medical treatment during the match against
Germany, with people taken to hospital for drunkenness, injuries suffered when
falling down steps, and heart problems.
The Wembley officials
agreed that fan behaviour had changed from before the pandemic, but described
it as “jubilant”. One told the meeting: “I do think we do have to take into
account we've never, ever faced anything on the back of a pandemic. And I
definitely feel that there is a release that happened on that day.”
The stadium promised to
increase stewarding on level 5 in the semi-finals again by redeploying staff
from outside the stadium following kick-off. Drinks per person were further
reduced, from four pints to two.
However, the SGSA official
expressed a preference for a total alcohol ban if England reached the
semi-finals, to prevent fans injuring themselves seriously. They told the meeting:
“I have never seen that behaviour at Wembley before. And, you know, there is no
way you can deal with that behaviour.”
When the meeting discussed
fan behaviours outside the stadium, the MPS Silver Commander for Euro 2020 did
not agree with the view that the atmosphere was toxic when England played
Germany. Their information was that the England fans were “exuberant and
happy'' and that the atmosphere was no different from other high stakes
football matches at Wembley, such as a play off final. He concluded that the
police were preparing for “more of the same” behaviour should England progress
to the semi-finals.
Nobody at the WSAG
challenged the MPS’ position, despite the council and the SGSA having different
opinions.
Nor did anybody at the
meeting attempt to reconcile the police view that there was nothing unusual
about what was happening outside the stadium with the concerns strongly
expressed about the unprecedented fan behaviour inside the stadium.
The meeting concluded with
an agreement to support the MPS Silver Commander in asking for a larger number
of police officers for future matches. The MPS subsequently added in an extra
TSG unit of 33 officers inside Wembley on top of the two TSG units. The MPS
told the Review that this decision reflected concerns about the adequacy of
stewarding within the stadium.
The MPS told the Review
that it debriefed after each match at Wembley, fed back to the WSAG and
increased officer numbers there steadily through the tournament and tasked them
to be more assertive in moving on fans who gathered outside the stadium.
